The problem with Socialism
Sir Frederick
money." Margaret Thatcher
--
F M McNeill
858 206-3517
California, USA
***********************************************
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among
them bounties, donations and benefits."-Plutarch (c.45-125 A.D.)
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher
*******************************************************
tgde...@earthlink.net
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
I thought that was the problem with capitalism, given the latest news.
-tg
Sir Frederick
>On Mar 6, 5:26 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>>
>
>I thought that was the problem with capitalism, given the latest news.
>
>-tg
>
An audit of the Madoff Ponzi fraud indicates he only did 20 billion dollars,
not the 50 billion he claimed.
Chazwin
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
"The problem with Capitalism is that you compete and squeeze money so
well that the people making the goods can't afford to buy them." Me
"The other problem with capitalism is that the money you think belongs
to you have been stolen by the exploitation of others"
Me
shrik...@gmail.com
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> money." Margaret Thatcher
I thought the real problem with it was that
nobody likes standing in line.
shrik...@gmail.com
And you will know Democratic Socialism has
been achieved when the waiting list for Kevorkianization
is so long everybody dies before finally getting
served.
tgde...@earthlink.net
I was thinking of the CEO and trader types who got 30 million bonuses
for running their businesses into the ground---perfectly legal.
-tg
tooly
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:hdu1r4d57aj7o0rab...@4ax.com...
Having worked in the public sector for years, I have long since seen a major
problem with socialistic environments where there is no 'private ownership'.
The motivations of those running things are 'different'.
Under capitalism, owners are interested in bottom line thinking...and
cutting costs. This entails looking for 'talent' while optimising the work
force for productivity...which all equates to better profit margin. Dead
weight...those who do not perform to some minimal degree, are cut loose;
fired. This leads to excellence in job performance and the likelihood of
moving people into niches where they CAN achieve to their potentials [be it
high or low].
Not so in public sector. Department heads are interested in 'maintaining'
their budgets. After all, if they can cut their budgets enough, the
rationale for the department goes away...and their job. Everyone wants to
do a good job of course, but the incentive in the public sector is to
'maintain' calm...to not make waves. Talented people are overlooked and
dead weight underperformers are held on...because to differentate the
workforce in any way just causes problems. The end result is mediocrity at
best. This is a major reason why big government is a bad thing for human
beings.
If what the people of this land now want is to 'just exist'...to not have
aspirations, or dreams, or visions of real achievement in life...then
socialism is the way to go. It will protect more people from failure.
But if people still want to dream, to have visions of a better world where
they are fully productive and living to their full potential, then
capitalism offers the best for the most. But the trade off is that you can
fail under capitalism. The chance for high rewards or mundane existence
seems to be the choice.
I am highly suspect of Obama's deeper motivations as serving his people
beneath policies that subtlely transfers power to the historical underclass.
Socialism will always work to the advantage of the disenfranchised, the
underclasses, those underachievers who otherwise might 'fail' (in large
part) in a competitive world. We all come with natural bias that works upon
our subconscious as deeper motivation. If truth were known, I suspect
Obama would love to take the wealth of white people and give it to black
people. I mean, isn't that what he "really" meant when he was saying
"Change we Need"? He'd probably never admit it openly, nor perhaps even to
himself [if he is man of character, which I wonder about]...but it is pretty
clear he hates wall street [probably as a symbolic manifestation of an evil
white world, much as Al Quieda professed perhaps].
The USA is in deep doo doo I'm afraid. Social democrats are one spit away
from the communists in ideology you know. And now they are in charge.
And our young people have been kidnapped....
ZerkonXXXX
> "The problem with Socialism is
few seem to know what it is, exactly. No one really seems to know what a
'free market is, exactly. Lost in lingo-isms, puffed up by corporate talk
shows becoming more and more detached from any serious discussion,
reducing economic complexities to more slobbery emotional hot buttons
which do nothing but obfuscate events, the 'we' spits and fumes with
little else but sound and fury.
Meanwhile...
Immortalist
> On Mar 6, 5:26 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
> > "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> > money." Margaret Thatcher
>
> I thought that was the problem with capitalism, given the latest news.
>
Very good. Either extreme, of socialism or unregulated free
enterprise, has been shown to lead to destruction of the economy. Hell
even the Reagan tilt to less Keynesian economics over the last 30
years is enough to show where the balance between socialism and
capitalism must be regulated.
Keynesian economics promotes a mixed economy where both the state and
the private sector have important roles. Keynesian economics seeks to
provide solutions to what some consider failures of laissez-faire
economic liberalism, which advocates that markets and the private
sector operate best without state intervention.
In Keynes' theory, macroeconomic trends can overwhelm the micro-level
behavior of individuals. Instead of the economic process being based
on continuous improvement in potential output, as most classical
economists had believed from the late 1700s on, Keynes asserted the
importance of aggregate demand for goods as the driving factor of the
economy, especially in periods of downturn. From this he argued that
government policies could be used to promote demand at a macro level,
to fight high unemployment and deflation of the sort seen during the
1930s. Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate
the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two
approaches :
1. a reduction in interest rates.
2. Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income
results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn
stimulates more production and investment involving still more income
and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of
events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the
original investment.
A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that there is no strong
automatic tendency for output and employment to move toward full
employment levels. This conclusion conflicts with the tenets of
classical economics, and those schools, such as supply-side economics
or the Austrian School, which assume a general tendency towards a
welcome equilibrium in a restrained money-creating economy. In the
'neoclassical synthesis', which combines Keynesian macro concepts with
a micro foundation, the conditions of General equilibrium allow for
price adjustment to achieve this goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
http://groups.google.com/group/van.general/msg/80a032350e675f46
http://www.google.com/search?q=Keynesian+economics
ta
Bret Cahill
> > >> money." �Margaret Thatcher
>
> > >I thought that was the problem with capitalism, given the latest news.
>
> > >-tg
>
> > An audit of the Madoff Ponzi fraud indicates he only did 20 billion dollars,
> > not the 50 billion he claimed.
>
> I was thinking of the CEO and trader types who got 30 million bonuses
> for running their businesses into the ground---perfectly legal.
The Madoff misrepresenation is on point here. Madoff lied hoping to
be bailed out to the tune of $50 billion. Then he would come out
ahead by $10 billion at taxpayers' expense.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> money." �Margaret Thatcher
>
> >I thought that was the problem with capitalism, given the latest news.
>
> >-tg
>
> An audit of the Madoff Ponzi fraud indicates he only did 20 billion dollars,
> not the 50 billion he claimed.
Shortly after the story broke an acquaintence cheerfully told me that
the money never existed in the first place, the ponzi _itself_ was a
fraud.
Now it looks like he was at least 3/5th correct.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
capitalism man exploits man while with communism it's the other way
around."
-- Old Soviet era joke
Chazwin
That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s, and will soon
be our problem again.
Lines for jobs that don't exist.
Lines for closing banks that don't have any money.
Lines for soup kitchens.
Bret Cahill
>
> few seem to know what it is, exactly. No one really seems to know what a
> 'free market is, exactly.
We don't need to be all that exact for free marketry to be a useful
concept. A free market free trade is when both sides have free speech
to determine what the free trade is and then have free speech to
consent to that free trade.
Unfortunately GOP "market" economists are too cowardly to support the
precondition of free trade which is free speech.
Michael Gordge
> Very good. Either extreme, of socialism or unregulated free
> enterprise, has been shown to lead to destruction of the economy.
Nope, the destruction of the closest the world has even been to a
capitalist system began with Abraham Lincoln, and its been all down
hill since then.
MG
Michael Gordge
> "The problem with Capitalism is that you compete and squeeze money so
> well that the people making the goods can't afford to buy them."
Fuck ewe are a stupid ignorant nauseating leftist retard chazzzzz,
money is NOT the prerequisite or nor even the underlying principle of
capitalism. The perception of a greater for lesser value is and even
retards like ewe shop around for the best fridge deal.
MG
Iain
" Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system
and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else.
Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common
sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself
already. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially,
plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all
cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work
and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious
that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless
he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. " --
Orwell
--Iain
Geode
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
this crisis.
So, each system has to charge with its own failures. It is true that
capitalism is more productive and efficient at ruling the economy,
till the moment it fails. So, the crucial question is to understand
the other part of capitalism, that rarely is explain in didactics like
your post. I am fingering to the part of capitalism that produced
this crisis. For it is clear to me, that this crisis was caused by
the people that is working in ordinary levels of economy. The crisis
appeared because there are some levers and gears in the capitalism
system that are not well understood. Or in case they were understood
by a few specialists, there were not in charge, or paying attention to
the machine's controls. So, the damned machine was running
unattended. So, here we are now.
So, you should know a lot more about economy, and perhaps you would so
kind to enlighten some of us by telling why this crisis had happened.
So, We already know all that story about the productivity of
capitalism. Now, please, tell us what part of the capitalism is
wrong.
leopoldo
Geode
I think that many people has not a very clear understanding of the
economy. The main trouble is because money is a sort of abstraction.
The only real money is that the people use to spend. We fancy the
black are full of money, but the banks has almost no money. The only
money that is the banks is the money that is going and going
everyday. But most of the theoretical money of the banks has been
given to borrowers.
So, even if is very clear the concept of monetary inflation as a
number obtained by some algorithm, it failed this time as in other
crisis, to pay attention to other less known forms of inflation, like
stock market prices, new home prices, and others.
The trouble with capitalism is that all those benefits has to be saved
somewhere. When they are saved by buying stocks, the stocks prices
rise. But stocks cannot rise so much and give profits in the same
amount of their rising. So, other pople feel the incoming crash and
put the money in the banks. So banks dont want to have so much money
iddle in their vaults and lend it. So, they are eager to lend money
and this need gave birth to a lot of trashy morgages.
All that comes because the system cannot cope with too many profits.
And even if the economy does are not heated when you look at monetary
inflation, it is heated in higher levels we call high finances.
So, if they would have had a little more ordinary inflation, or a
government eager to suck money out of those fucking winners, we would
not have had the present crisis.
Perhaps my message looks a little fuzzy, that is due that English is
not my mother tongue and I don't understand a shit of economy.
leopoldo
BOfL
The only reality not taken into account with such ideologies, is that
all men are not born equal.
The bee hive being a good example, but a better one is the
hierarchical nature of your own physical body and how it responds to
different levels of direction.
BOfL
BOfL
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing wrong with any system. It is just natural greed, desire for
power over others, and a desire to dictate to the rest of the world
what 'should' be happening that gets in the way.
Lets get them before they get us. Somethings in homo sapean never
changes.Just the nature of the beast.
BOfL
Mike
Unfortunatly it is not obvious and not everyone wants to do thier
"fair share" whatever that might mean. The "corrupt motive" is
personal survival.
Fred Weiss
> On Mar 6, 12:21 pm, shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 2:26 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
> > > "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> > > money." Margaret Thatcher
>
> > I thought the real problem with it was that
> > nobody likes standing in line.
>
I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's, which obviously had
nothing to do with capitalism - and therefore of course prolonged the
Depression by years. And so, you still had soup kitchens in 1938 and
massive unemployment 6 years after FDR took office. Let's hope we
don't get a repeat of that with Obama. But unfortunately at the moment
it looks like we might - unless the opposition (which is mounting) is
successful. (Even some of his own Democrats are starting to balk at
the more absurd aspects of it, such as raising taxes).
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> " Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system
> and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
> getting enough to eat..."
Tell that to the victims of famine in socialist systems
"wholeheartedly applied", e.g. Soviet Russia, Mao's China, N. Korea
Tell that to Cubans on food rationing.
Tell that to Venezuelans - in a country swimming in vast oil wealth -
who are experiencing food shortages.
Fred Weiss
Chazwin
truth.
If the West were to introduce free trade we would be wiped out before
the end of the next financial year.
Trade has, thankfully, always been about POWER.
The rich countries have always put tariffs in imports and maintained
trade protection.
This is how the poor countries have stayed poor and the populace of
the West have enjoyed the fruits of high wages to keep demand up.
Chazwin
Sadly, people with power wish to keep it. They fool themselves that
their "free" ways are not actually exploiting and starving the rest of
the world.
Chazwin
> On Mar 6, 4:15 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > " Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system
> > and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
> > getting enough to eat..."
>
> Tell that to the victims of famine in socialist systems
> "wholeheartedly applied", e.g. Soviet Russia, Mao's China, N. Korea
>
> Tell that to Cubans on food rationing.
I would if you could find one.
I think I'll ask how much they pay for their medicine.
>
> Tell that to Venezuelans - in a country swimming in vast oil wealth -
> who are experiencing food shortages.
Have you been reading right wing papers by any chance?
>
> Fred Weiss
Geode
> On Mar 7, 7:58 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Well, I think that there some theoretical things wrong in both
systems. They are different sort of failures, in a way they are
opposed. But I think there must
be some middle of the road way to do rule the economy.
I was wondering where was the sentry guard when Madoff was working on
his scheme to swindle a lot of investors. I know that of most them
were driven by greed, but this is not the real question. The real
question was how to avoid a financial crisis. On the other hand, how
they were watching Stock Excange. Is not there a concept to define an
overheating of the stock exchange prices? If there is a very clear
idea of the monetary inflation it should be also a clear idea of what
is an stock exchange inflation of prices. And the the same idea
applies to the construction business. How on earth there was not any
barrier to stop this inflation over prices on the construction?
If it is right that salaries should no grow up over a certain level,
this idea is also valid for other hikes in prices. When prices on the
stock exchange rise over some mathematic barrier, the sellers and
buyers should pay a part to the Treasure.
This barrier should not be used against particular bonds that rise,
but when there is a general inflation on the prices. So it must be in
relation to the mean rise in value of the stock exchange. Many of
these fevers should be wipe off this way.
leopoldo
Geode
of course, in a socialist system, the trouble is a lack of interest in
work on all levels, for they are not going to get any direct and
personal profit from it. So this system tends to go slower and slower
to the brink of paralysis. Why the defect of the capitalism system
is the opposite. It tends to go faster and faster till it runs off the
rails in the least expected moment. Other problem with the
capitalism, that it thrives by growing and growing. The most the it
grows the better. This tendency will put us in dear straight in the
near future, when the scarcity of oil would show us his sharp horns
and start to hit us in our privates and ass. It must be a nasty
experience, and the nervous feeling of the great nations of the world
would push us towards a nuclear war.
So, to teach capitalism moderation and small rates of growing in
economy would be a very difficult task.
I see a lot of problems ahead.
leopoldo
Geode
FDR prolonged the depression for years? So, you must have the keys to
get out fast from a depression. I would be glad that you tell us. I
am eager to learn.
leopoldo
Geode
the case of Venezuela could be related to the fast rate of population
growing.
Even if Venezuela sells almost the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia,
its profits are about half or less, due a simple fact. The oil is
very thick and must be heated with superheated steam to make it flow
up to the surface. So to the heat all those water to produce steam
and to inject it underground at great pressure that cost a lot of
money.
The rest, like the typical socialist scarcities of food is due mostly
to the slower pace of work they have.
At present, the capitalist system is riding on a very wild bronco that
is called oil.
When this wild horse will show us it is already a very old horse, we
will fall from the saddle and would break our necks. Unless we were
preparing already a new way of driving out our asses through the
world.
leopoldo
Fred Weiss
> On Mar 7, 7:47 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:15 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > " Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, as a world-system
> > > and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
> > > getting enough to eat..."
>
> > Tell that to the victims of famine in socialist systems
> > "wholeheartedly applied", e.g. Soviet Russia, Mao's China, N. Korea
>
> > Tell that to Cubans on food rationing.
> I would if you could find one.
Find what? A socialist victim of famine? A Cuban on food rationing?
Are you still in denial, Chaz?
> I think I'll ask how much they pay for their medicine.
Considering their decrepit economy, their "free" medicine is not much
to brag about- and of course it's not actually free. They are also
happy to provide free tickets to prison - if you speak out against the
gov't or try to escape. If it's illegal to leave a country, Chaz, it's
equivalent to prison. Even you can grasp that, can't you?
"The confining shadow of Fidel’s tropical curtain, on the 50th
anniversary of the revolution, was captured in the emptiness before me
— of the Malecón, but even more so of the sea. I noticed over
subsequent days that Cubans perched on the seafront wall rarely looked
outward. When I asked Yoani Sánchez, a dissident blogger
(www.desdecuba.com/generaciony), about this, she told me: “We live
turned away from the sea because it does not connect us, it encloses
us. There is no movement on it. People are not allowed to buy boats
because if they had boats, they would go to Florida. We are left, as
one of our poets put it, with the unhappy circumstance of water at
every turn.”
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/magazine/07cuba-t.html?fta=y
> > Tell that to Venezuelans - in a country swimming in vast oil wealth -
> > who are experiencing food shortages.
>
> Have you been reading right wing papers by any chance?
You mean like the Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801240.html
This article btw was from 2007 when - awash in high-priced oil
revenues - times were relatively better in Venezuela.
But clearly not much has changed since, especially with a recent
Hitler-like mandate to move Venezuela ever closer to total
dictatorship.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090305/wl_nm/us_venezuela_chavez_cargill_6
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Free Trade is a myth. A fantasy that has never been allowed to become
> truth.
It was very real in 19th Cent. Britain - after the repeal of the Corn
Laws - which contributed to it becoming the richest country in the
world at the time.
> If the West were to introduce free trade we would be wiped out before
> the end of the next financial year.
Who is the "we" you are referring to? It presumably would "wipe out"
protected industries, which *should* be wiped out if they are unable
to compete. But that would be more than offset by enormous benefit to
the rest of industry and to everyone else. For example, we would not
now once again be facing having to bail-out the auto industry - which
is really bailing out overpaid UAW workers - and we would have a much
stronger foreign-owned auto manufacturing base producing highly
reliable and more fuel efficient cars.
Fred Weiss
Mike
> of course, in a socialist system, the trouble is a lack of interest in
> work on all levels, for they are not going to get any direct and
> personal profit from it. So this system tends to go slower and slower
> to the brink of paralysis. Why the defect of the capitalism system
> is the opposite. It tends to go faster and faster till it runs off the
> rails in the least expected moment. Other problem with the
> capitalism, that it thrives by growing and growing. The most the it
> grows the better. This tendency will put us in dear straight in the
> near future, when the scarcity of oil would show us his sharp horns
> and start to hit us in our privates and ass. It must be a nasty
> experience, and the nervous feeling of the great nations of the world
> would push us towards a nuclear war.
>
> So, to teach capitalism moderation and small rates of growing in
> economy would be a very difficult task.
I think we succeded.
> I see a lot of problems ahead.
There always are.
Geode
I don't agree with this theory. If you see a sheet of the growing
population of the world, you would see that poor countries are growing
very fast.
Watch this sheet,
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate
Except for the case of the US that grows nearly at 0,9% a year...
mostly due to Latino growing population, and Canada, with a rate 0,7%,
most of the developed nations are growing below the rate of 0,57 %
that is the case of France well ahead over the the rest.
The mean growing rate of Europe is about 0,015% This low growth
rates can explain the relative good standard of life.
In the case of the US, I see two nations there. The nation of the
rich people, that grows slow like in Europe, and a Third World nation
of poor people that is growing very fast, like in Africa or in any
other shit country in the world.
So, my theory explains most of the poverty of nations on then fast
rates of population growth. On the list of the link you can see 236
nations. Except a few rich nations that are swimming in oil and have
a high growth, about 118 are growing over 1% a year. It is not
catastrophic, but about 66 nations on the list are growing over 2% a
year.
In this list, only four nations have oil. And includes Nigeria, that
is a newcomer to the oil bonanza, but it is still full of shit till
mouth level.
You can find here about 80% of the poor nations of the world.
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom) Date
#1 Maldives: 5.566% 2008
#2 United Arab Emirates: 3.833% 2008 *
#3 Liberia: 3.661% 2008
#4 Uganda: 3.603% 2008
#5 Kuwait: 3.591% 2008 *
#6 Mayotte: 3.465% 2008
#7 Yemen: 3.46% 2008
#8 Burundi: 3.443% 2008
#9 Gaza Strip: 3.422% 2008
#10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 3.236% 2008
#11 Ethiopia: 3.212% 2008
#12 Oman: 3.19% 2008
#13 Macau: 3.148% 2008
#14 São Tomé and Príncipe: 3.116% 2008
#15 Burkina Faso: 3.109% 2008
#16 Benin: 3.01% 2008
#17 Madagascar: 3.005% 2008
#18 Niger: 2.878% 2008
#19 Western Sahara: 2.868% 2008
#20 Mauritania: 2.852% 2008
#21 Somalia: 2.824% 2008
#22 Comoros: 2.803% 2008
#23 Rwanda: 2.779% 2008
#24 Kenya: 2.758% 2008
#25 Equatorial Guinea: 2.732% 2008
#26 Mali: 2.725% 2008
#27 Gambia, The: 2.724% 2008
#28 Togo: 2.717% 2008
#29 Congo, Republic of the: 2.696% 2008
#30 Turks and Caicos Islands: 2.644% 2008
#31 Eritrea: 2.631% 2008
#32 Afghanistan: 2.626% 2008
#33 Senegal: 2.58% 2008
#34 Iraq: 2.562% 2008 *
#35 Haiti: 2.493% 2008
#36 Guinea: 2.492% 2008
#37 Solomon Islands: 2.467% 2008
#38 Cayman Islands: 2.449% 2008
#39 Malawi: 2.39% 2008
#40 Paraguay: 2.39% 2008
#41 Northern Mariana Islands: 2.377% 2008
#42 Laos: 2.344% 2008
#43 Jordan: 2.338% 2008
#44 Anguilla: 2.332% 2008
#45 Sierra Leone: 2.282% 2008
#46 Kiribati: 2.235% 2008
#47 West Bank: 2.225% 2008
#48 Cameroon: 2.218% 2008
#49 Libya: 2.216% 2008
#50 Belize: 2.207% 2008
#51 Chad: 2.195% 2008
#52 Syria: 2.189% 2008
#53 Côte d'Ivoire: 2.156% 2008
#54 Marshall Islands: 2.142% 2008
#55 Angola: 2.136% 2008
#56 Sudan: 2.134% 2008
#57 Papua New Guinea: 2.118% 2008
#58 Guatemala: 2.11% 2008
#59 Nepal: 2.095% 2008
#60 Tanzania: 2.072% 2008
#61 East Timor: 2.05% 2008
#62 Guinea-Bissau: 2.035% 2008
#63 Nigeria: 2.025% 2008 *
#64 Honduras: 2.024% 2008
#65 Bangladesh: 2.022% 2008
#66 Pakistan: 1.999% 2008
#67 Philippines: 1.991% 2008
leopoldo
Bret Cahill
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economicshttp://groups.google....
>
> > > -tg
>
> I think that many people has not a very clear understanding of the
> economy. �The main trouble is because money is a sort of abstraction.
> The only real money is that the people use to spend. �We fancy the
> black are full of money, but the banks has almost no money. �The only
> money that is the banks is the money that is going and going
> everyday. �But most of the theoretical money of the banks has been
> given to borrowers.
> So, even if is very clear the concept of monetary inflation as a
> number obtained by some algorithm, it failed this time as in other
> crisis, to pay attention to other less known forms of inflation, like
> stock market prices, new home prices, and others.
>
> The trouble with capitalism is that all those benefits has to be saved
> somewhere. �When they are saved by buying stocks, the stocks prices
> rise. �But stocks cannot rise so much and give profits in the same
> amount of their rising. �So, other pople feel the incoming crash and
> put the money in the banks. �So banks dont want to have so much money
> iddle in their vaults and lend it. �So, they are eager to lend money
> and this need gave birth to a lot of trashy morgages.
>
> All that comes because the system cannot cope with too many profits.
> And even if the economy does are not heated when you look at monetary
> inflation, it is heated in higher levels we call high finances.
>
> So, if they would have had a little more ordinary inflation, or a
> government eager to suck money out
High taxes on the rich + low interest rates = long term stable growth.
That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
Bret Cahill
freedom0in0exile
Kindergarten economics. Grow up, little boy.
The Clinton economy took off after he dropped capital gains taxes. If
you want more or less of something, you change the taxation on it.
(The same principle now being foisted by the looters WRT carbon
emissions. If you want less carbon, you tax it.).
Back to high school with you.
F0F
Bret Cahill
> > > > money." �Margaret Thatcher
>
> > > I thought the real problem with it was that
> > > nobody likes standing in line.
>
> > That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
FDR voted out of power?
It's starting to look like today's capitalists won't be able to
articulate anything in 2012 and Obama will be a two termer.
We already know today's "market economists" cannot articulate any
answer whatsoever to The Question on markets:
> which obviously had
> nothing to do with capitalism -
Capitalism has nothing to do with free marketry.
It's 100% certain you aren't going to derive any benefits from free
marketry without the precondition of free speech.
And it's 100% certain capitalists want nothing whatsoever to do with
free speech.
> and therefore of course prolonged the
> Depression by years.
The Depression was caused and prolonged by the Federal Reserve,
created by for and of the robber barons.
The Fed jacked up interest rates.
> And so, you still had soup kitchens in 1938 and
> massive unemployment 6 years after FDR took office. Let's hope we
> don't get a repeat of that with Obama. But unfortunately at the moment
> it looks like we might - unless the opposition (which is mounting) is
> successful.
The only thing Repuglicons might have going for them this time around
is peak oil will stop any conventional recovery in its tracks, and
even that will be difficult for do nothing Repugliars to spin in their
favor.
Back in the Great Depression J. P. Morgan had the Fed by the short
one's. This time around the guy with neatly trimmed facial hair works
at the pleasure of Obama's economic advisors, the same guys who had
Greenspan by the short ones during the high tax Clinton economic boom.
Obama will benefit from low interest rates as well as high taxes.
FDR didn't have that advantage.
> (Even some of his own Democrats are starting to balk at
> the more absurd aspects of it, such as raising taxes).
Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
As Rich of the _NY Times_ said, there's a populist tsunami rolling
over Washington.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
The only response rightards have today is what they had back in 1936:
"We need to keep up the same failed policies that got us into this
mess in the first place."
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is
the definition of insanity.
Generally Republicans aren't voted out out of power from some
intellectual debate but because no one can spin them as anything other
than insane.
That's why Obama will win in 2012.
In fact, since Obama has control of the Fed, an advantage FDR did
_not_ have so it's easy to predict that Obama will be even _more_
popular than FDR.
Peak oil can kill any conventional recovery but here again Repugliars
have no solution either.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > from the communists in ideology you know. � And now they are in charge.
> > And our young people have been kidnapped....
>
> Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
> this crisis.
But since the right has no explanation and in fact have a conflict of
interest with the explanation, they can only sit back a squirm and
whine.
> So, �each system has to charge with its own failures. �It is true that
> capitalism is more productive and efficient at ruling the economy,
> till the moment it fails. �So, the crucial question is to understand
> the other part of capitalism, that rarely is explain in didactics like
> your post. �I am fingering to the part of capitalism that produced
> this crisis. �For it is clear to me, that this crisis was caused by
> the people that is working in ordinary levels of economy. �The crisis
> appeared because there are some levers and gears in the capitalism
> system that are not well understood. �Or in case they were understood
> by a few specialists, there were not in charge, or paying attention to
> the machine's controls. �So, the damned machine was running
> unattended. �So, here we are now.
>
> So, you should know a lot more about economy, and perhaps you would so
> kind to enlighten some of us by telling why this crisis had happened.
> So, We already know all that story about the productivity of
> capitalism. �Now, please, tell us what part of the capitalism is
> wrong.
OK, now that you twisted my arm (ouch! yalza! halp me halp me!) I'll
explain:
They want free markets without free speech.
The truth is self evident: Free marketry ain't gonna happen without
free speech.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
You don't have to be a genius to agree with a self evident truth but
you must be a complete moron to disagree with one:
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
>>>>> money." �Margaret Thatcher
>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
It was the Federal reserve.
>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
The Federal reserve printing money and FDR's debt spending which is a
deferred tax, made it worse.
> Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> FDR voted out of power?
Why did Bush get a second term?
> It's starting to look like today's capitalists won't be able to
> articulate anything in 2012 and Obama will be a two termer.
I wouldn't bet on it. People are generally stupid, but they will have 4
years to get this point.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> The USA is in deep doo doo I'm afraid. � Social democrats are one spit away
>>> from the communists in ideology you know. � And now they are in charge.
>>> And our young people have been kidnapped....
>> Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
>> this crisis.
Actually it is working, the problem is that you don't know how it works.
Like Global Warming, you tell us what it will be in 100 years, yet you
can't tell what the weather will be next week.
You think you can tell us capitalism is broken, yet you can't tell us
what it looks like when it is working..... This is part of the
Capitalist cycle. But the more you muck with the system while not
understanding it, the worse it gets.
The Federal Reserve has made the last cycles 1929 and 1979 far worse
than they needed to be. The Fiat dollar was used to try to stop or
suppress the natural cycles, it made them worse.
The recessions and depressions are worse, thanks to the Federal Reserve
printing money and government taxing and borrow and spending programs.
John Jones
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
>
Fred Weiss
> > > > > "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> > > > > money." Margaret Thatcher
>
> > > > I thought the real problem with it was that
> > > > nobody likes standing in line.
>
> > > That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
> > I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929. But in your delusional
universe apparently anything is possible.
> Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> FDR voted out of power?
Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
arguments. Now they do.
(Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
book - or in other words her prescience is being acknowledged by many
more commentators.). Here is an example:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43954
> It's 100% certain you aren't going to derive any benefits from free
> marketry without the precondition of free speech.
You mean like they have in Red China?
> > and therefore of course prolonged the Depression by years.
>
> The Depression was caused and prolonged by the Federal Reserve,
> created by for and of the robber barons.
>
> The Fed jacked up interest rates.
"How Government Prolonged the Depression"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
There is a great deal in this article I disagree with - and there are
important factors the authors omit - but I cite it only as a counter
to Brat's typical ignorance (and the usual glib leftists apologetics
for FDR).
This review provides some further elaboration on the thesis.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
> Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
I suspect it doesn't even matter in this instance - either to you or
the populace - that it will produce *less* revenue and thus have the
exact opposite effect of that intended. (Bush's tax cuts produced
substantial increases in personal and corporate tax receipts and a
significant increase in the percentage of overall Federal income tax
receipts coming from the rich. The problem was that - like many
Americans - even with the increased income he managed to spend far
more than he was taking in. It wasn't the supposed "high taxes" of
Clinton that mattered much in the 1990s. It was the restraint on
spending imposed by the Republican Congress.)
Fred Weiss
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> >>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
> >>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
> >>>> nobody likes standing in line.
> >>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
> It was the Federal reserve.
The fed hiked interest rates when it should have lowered them.
> >> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
> > So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
> The Federal reserve printing money and FDR's debt spending which is a
> deferred tax, made it worse.
The high tax Clinton economic boom, the longest expansion in the
history of the republic, put the Party of Gipper on the ash heap of
history.
> > Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> > FDR voted out of power?
> Why did Bush get a second term?
The Dems didn't run anyone against him.
> > It's starting to look like today's capitalists won't be able to
> > articulate anything in 2012 and Obama will be a two termer.
> I wouldn't bet on it. �
Are Repugs going to have some talking points other than the failed
policies that got us into this mess in the first place?
> People are generally stupid, but they will have 4
> years to get this point.
So you agree Repugs will lose even _more_ seats in Congress.
Bret Cahill
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> > > > > > money." Margaret Thatcher
> > > > > I thought the real problem with it was that
> > > > > nobody likes standing in line.
> > > > That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
> > > I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
> > So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
Repugs are already trying to blame the GOP tax cut meltdown on Obama
when it happened back in October '08 before he was even elected and
the GOP tax cut recession happened in late '07 before he was even
nominated.
That lie didn't work in 1936. Why do Repugs think it'll work now?
. . . .
> > Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> > FDR voted out of power?
> Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
> they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
> arguments. Now they do.
You really think that will persuade people?
> (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
> that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
> book -
That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
. . .
> > Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
> Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
> pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
More and more people are agreeing with Obama's tax hikes than the
Gipster's tax cuts.
A recent Fox poll showed that Obama's fiscal policy was more popular
than the Gipster's by 48% - 40%.
Bret Cahill
Dennis Armstrong
You claim Bush's tax cut produce increased revenues. Where are they?
If the "wealthy" of this nation attempt to create the fantasy world presented in "Atlas Shrugged" they will be
rounded up like the French and Russian Royalty before them. Let's face it, Ayn Rand, in "Atlas Shrugged"
was trying to recreate the world of 19th century Russia. Reliving the past is not a pathway to the future!
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> >>> from the communists in ideology you know. And now they are in charge.
> >>> And our young people have been kidnapped....
> >> Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
> >> this crisis.
>
> Actually it is working, the problem is that you don't know how it works.
Well don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of our chairs. The
least you could do is come up with some _new_ Repugliar talking points
and _tell_ us how it works.
Otherwise Obama will win in 2012 just like FDR won in 1936.
Repugs had no credible talking points in 1936 and they have nothing
but more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the
first place.
Bret Cahill
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> > and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
> > getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else.
> > Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common
> > sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself
> > already. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially,
> > plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all
> > cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work
> > and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious
> > that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless
> > he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. " --
> > Orwell
>
> > --Iain
>
> "fair share" whatever that might mean.
What _is_ obvious to everyone is that do nothing Republican
politicians have nothing to offer as an alternative except more of the
same failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
That's why Obama will win in 2012 just like FDR won in 1936.
Bret Cahill
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> > > and wholeheartedly applied, is a way out. It would at least ensure our
> > > getting enough to eat even if it deprived us of everything else.
> > > Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such elementary common
> > > sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself
> > > already. The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially,
> > > plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all
> > > cooperate and see to it that every-one does his fair share of the work
> > > and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious
> > > that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless
> > > he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. " --
> > > Orwell
>
> > > --Iain
>
> > Unfortunatly it is not obvious and not everyone wants to do thier
> > "fair share" whatever that might mean. The "corrupt motive" is
> > personal survival.
>
> of course, in a socialist system, the trouble is a lack of interest in
> work on all levels, for they are not going to get any direct and
The intellectual property laws are based on the personal profit
motive. Political scientists as well as most mainstream economists
agree it works, at least to some extent.
> So this system tends to go slower and slower
> to the brink of paralysis. � �
Actually it happens rather rapidly.
> Why the defect of the capitalism system
> is the opposite. It tends to go faster and faster till it runs off the
> rails in the least expected moment. �
Both systems dishonor labor and that's why we have problems with both
sysyems.
Bret Cahill
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration."
-- Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
Les Cargill
> On Mar 7, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
>
> Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
> pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> I suspect it doesn't even matter in this instance - either to you or
> the populace - that it will produce *less* revenue and thus have the
> exact opposite effect of that intended. (Bush's tax cuts produced
> substantial increases in personal and corporate tax receipts and a
> significant increase in the percentage of overall Federal income tax
> receipts coming from the rich.
So what to make of this, then?
The CBO says that tax revenue was reduced by $165B
in 2007 alone by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. This figure is projected
to become larger (negatively) over time.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8337&type=0
(Just saying - trust no-one :)
> The problem was that - like many
> Americans - even with the increased income he managed to spend far
> more than he was taking in. It wasn't the supposed "high taxes" of
> Clinton that mattered much in the 1990s. It was the restraint on
> spending imposed by the Republican Congress.)
>
It was an increase in tax revenues from the dotcom boom. Whether
or not the tax rates had any effect is hard to say.
> Fred Weiss
--
Les Cargill
Beam Me Up Scotty
Why not relive it, we are taught about the Boston tea party and respect
the peoples stand against tyranny.
Look what Russia ended up with when the "wealthy" failed. Remember that
when you Socialist start to round up people. Stalin Killed 24 million
people.
Now Come and round me up...... I already "retired" from my supporting
the government and the poor, now you can support yourselves.
shrik...@gmail.com
The same thing that ended the depression
overnight. War. But only a big war that
kills off the surplus labor.
shrik...@gmail.com
I exaggerate. War is indeed one of the most
Keynesian policies of them all, but it isn't the
only way. It is said that Sweden managed
to get out of the depression before any other
nation by adopting Keynesianism more
wholeheartedly than did FDR. For instance,
FDR raised taxes as the mounting deficits
began to make him nervous. What followed
was another decrease in the GDP.
The real problem with Keynesian New Dealer
policies though is they are founded on the
broken window fallacy. That is, if you break
a window, it stimulates the economy because
more demand for labor results. But that labor
has not increased the general wealth of
society, because it merely got us back to
where we started. A better way to deal with
a drop in the demand for labor is to embrace
it. Shorten the work week to 32 hours a
week. This increases the demand for labor,
without the gummint spending a dime, and
without breaking any windows or killing off
surplus laborers.
shrik...@gmail.com
Er, I should have written that it increases
the demand for laborers, since you will
get less from each laborer (unless you
really want to pay overtime.)
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
>>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
>>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
>>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>
>>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>
>>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
>>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>
>> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
>
> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
Made it worse.... FDR didn't start it but he prolonged it and deepened it.
>
> Repugs are already trying to blame the GOP tax cut meltdown on Obama
> when it happened back in October '08 before he was even elected and
> the GOP tax cut recession happened in late '07 before he was even
> nominated.
>
> That lie didn't work in 1936. Why do Repugs think it'll work now?
>
Obama was in congress for two years before he was elected president.
So yes he gets blame..... Why didn't Obama who was in the Majority in
congress, do anything to fix it, do you have anything showing where
Obama in 2006 - 08 was introducing legislation written personally by
Obama to fix this problem?
So Obama was to blame.
I think he has a share of the Blame, And the truth is that Obama took
over the "planning" to fix what he ignored for two years, and Obama has
only made things worse.
>>> Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
>>> FDR voted out of power?
>
>> Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
>> they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
>> arguments. Now they do.
>
> You really think that will persuade people?
The Federal Reserve and income tax was only created in 1913.... so in 20
years they hadn't learned how much damage they could do by printing
their way out of economic slow downs and using the printing presses to
prop-up the economy.
>
>> (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
>> that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
>> book -
It's ominous, how right Ayn Rand was so long ago.... Many people think
Rush Limbaugh nailed down the Lefty Liberals and Socialist, but the Book
"Atlas Shrugged" paints Liberalism with it's true colors.
> That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
>
Agree or not, it makes you ask the right questions.
>>> Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
>
>> Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
>> pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
You may be surprised.
>
> More and more people are agreeing with Obama's tax hikes than the
> Gipster's tax cuts.
What planet are you on? People are taking their money from stocks and
banks and keeping it close at hand, once the laws break down and the
government takes money without any constitutional restraint, people want
to protect their money from being stolen by Obama and the Socialist looters.
There is no limit to fear of government stealing your money once they
start stealing money who knows where it's all going to end, Government
ignores the laws... they start with "only" this rich guy, and now people
are realizing that the Socialists are using a trickle-down tax plan.
They will be taxing more and more and people are taking their money and
running, and I think they are the smart ones.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> The USA is in deep doo doo I'm afraid. Social democrats are one spit away
>>>>> from the communists in ideology you know. And now they are in charge.
>>>>> And our young people have been kidnapped....
>>>> Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
>>>> this crisis.
>> Actually it is working, the problem is that you don't know how it works.
>
> Well don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of our chairs. The
> least you could do is come up with some _new_ Repugliar talking points
> and _tell_ us how it works.
>
> Otherwise Obama will win in 2012 just like FDR won in 1936.
I'm tired of Obama's lies after 6 weeks, you think even idiots like you
will believe the lies for four years?
> Repugs had no credible talking points in 1936 and they have nothing
> but more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the
> first place.
Actually they knew then.... and we all know now that Borrowing trillions
of dollars to buy votes, will bankrupt America, but you socialist keep
spending government money like a teenager with a credit card and when it
does collapse, there will be Change.
That change may include pitch forks and torches in socialists front yards.
Geode
I am an ignorant of economics. But unless this crisis was cooked on
purpose, they would be a lot more of ignorants in the economy on
charge.
This case of Madoff, by example, is a question of lack controls. Even
the overrating of stock exchange prices, the construction fever...
etc. are telling me, capitalism has some defects of control, or the
managers in charge of those controls were drunk or sleeping. I don't
say anything now about the cases that happened in times of former
president Bush, the sandals of the dot.com companies, etc.
I am not going to enter into this war because is to a point
independent of economics, but is a sure heavy charge over the economy.
I don't say that capitalism is broken, it isn't. History proves it.
All that I am saying is something is wrong when we are unable to
avoid the cyclical crisis. And some exaggerated scandals like the
case of Madoff.
I would be able to point to some of the errors in capitalism, but as I
said, I am not an expert. So perhaps, economy is working like this by
chance, and nobody understand it enough to avoid the depressions. I
heard a lot of nonsense about economy in my long life.
leopoldo
tooly
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:5234eee6-1749-4229...@f37g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43954
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Fred Weiss
--------------
tooly wrote:
Fred, I appreciate your presence in these parts, but you do know you are
speaking to people who are more or less, insane [like, as you call him,
"Brat" Cahil and his ilk]. They'll just keep coming back with more
invention, more made up rationale that has no bearing in reality simply to
support thier social agenda no matter what [the leftists on this NG].
Alas, they want to 'rule the world'. I often wonder though if some of these
agitators aren't part of a larger campaign to infect the internet with
critical theory application for the specific reason to plant seeds of doubt
in the establishment (not in their logical stances, but in the sense of not
holding the majoritave viewpoint). Their musings are quite ridiculous and
fantastical most of the time, but they are relentless [such as, ahem,
'Brat's' daily posts enculcating descent and spewing venhiement 'anti'
anything established]. I myself, am amazed that we, the established, are
even giving the time of day to this recent flush of socialism's argument.
Economically, it has been proven long ago...I repeat, 'long ago', that
command economies are simply dinasaur's with peabrains that are not very
responsive to market forces of supply and demand. Economies tend to shrink
under socialism. Socialism has been debunked time and again by those in the
know (except for some bare minimum social welfare to prevent abject
suffering...and even that against economic efficiency). That we are even
having this conversation at this late date is amazing to me...and an attest
to the grave mistake the population made this last election based upon the
most superficial attributes of 'appearance' alone [Obama's suave' on speech
podiums etc].
Fred Weiss
> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
I never said he caused it. I said he prolonged it. That btw is not
even any longer a particularly controversial view - not at least among
those who have seriously studied the question.
> > > Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> > > FDR voted out of power?
> > Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
> > they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
> > arguments. Now they do.
>
> You really think that will persuade people?
Some. You asked if *capitalists* can now better articulate the case
for capitalism. The answer is "yes". Now they can and some are.
> > (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
> > that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
> > book -
>
> That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
True. Only a very small percentage of people who read the book are
fully persuaded by it. But cultural change is always fostered by
small, articulate, committed minorities
> > > Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
> > Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
> > pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
I didn't say she was. (And in fact she isn't). I just said that
interest in her ideas is growing - and where it counts most, among
those in a position to influence the culture.
Fred Weiss
Beam Me Up Scotty
Madoff is a case of a failure in law enforcement. We have laws against
the Madoff con that duped people. Ponzi schemes are illegal except for
the government ones.
> the overrating of stock exchange prices, the construction fever...
> etc. are telling me, capitalism has some defects of control, or the
> managers in charge of those controls were drunk or sleeping. I don't
A fool and his money.... maybe there was a lot of suckers born each
minute, about 40 years ago.
> say anything now about the cases that happened in times of former
> president Bush, the sandals of the dot.com companies, etc.
I suspected Government controls caused the dot com bubble.
> I am not going to enter into this war because is to a point
> independent of economics, but is a sure heavy charge over the economy.
Being as we are paying for the war it surely is a drain.
> I don't say that capitalism is broken, it isn't. History proves it.
> All that I am saying is something is wrong when we are unable to
> avoid the cyclical crisis. And some exaggerated scandals like the
> case of Madoff.
The Human cycle is the problem, we forget how bad the bad times can be.
The Federal reserve prints money to cushion the crisis and the
interference makes for unintended consequences. They make recession
slower longer and deeper, they create a Depression.
Fred Weiss
> You claim Bush's tax cut produce increased revenues. Where are they?
Check the statistics for yourself at the BEA website.
> If the "wealthy" of this nation attempt to create the fantasy world presented in "Atlas Shrugged" they will be
> rounded up like the French and Russian Royalty before them. Let's face it, Ayn Rand, in "Atlas Shrugged"
> was trying to recreate the world of 19th century Russia. Reliving the past is not a pathway to the future!
You obviously have no idea what you are talking. For one thing Ayn
Rand loathed Russian culture with a passion.
Furthermore, it wasn't the "wealthy", per se, who created "the fantasy
world" in Atlas. Wealth, among those who had it (and not all did), was
secondary to them representing those she considered "the men of the
mind" upon whose shoulders civilization rests.
Fred Weiss
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
>>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
>>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
>>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>
>>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>
>>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
>>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>
>> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
>
> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
Made it worse.... FDR didn't start it but he prolonged it and deepened it.
>
> Repugs are already trying to blame the GOP tax cut meltdown on Obama
> when it happened back in October '08 before he was even elected and
> the GOP tax cut recession happened in late '07 before he was even
> nominated.
>
> That lie didn't work in 1936. Why do Repugs think it'll work now?
>
Obama was in congress for two years before he was elected president.
So yes he gets blame..... Why didn't Obama who was in the Majority in
congress, do anything to fix it, do you have anything showing where
Obama in 2006 - 08 was introducing legislation written personally by
Obama to fix this problem?
So Obama was to blame.
I think he has a share of the Blame, And the truth is that Obama took
over the "planning" to fix what he ignored for two years, and Obama has
only made things worse.
>>> Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
>>> FDR voted out of power?
>
>> Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
>> they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
>> arguments. Now they do.
>
> You really think that will persuade people?
The Federal Reserve and income tax was only created in 1913.... so in 20
years they hadn't learned how much damage they could do by printing
their way out of economic slow downs and using the printing presses to
prop-up the economy.
>
>> (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
>> that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
>> book -
It's ominous, how right Ayn Rand was so long ago.... Many people think
Rush Limbaugh nailed down the Lefty Liberals and Socialist, but the Book
"Atlas Shrugged" paints Liberalism with it's true colors.
> That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
>
Agree or not, it makes you ask the right questions.
>>> Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
>
>> Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
>> pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
You may be surprised.
>
> More and more people are agreeing with Obama's tax hikes than the
> Gipster's tax cuts.
What planet are you on? People are taking their money from stocks and
Fred Weiss
> The CBO says that tax revenue was reduced by $165B
> in 2007 alone by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. This figure is projected
> to become larger (negatively) over time.
>
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8337&type=0
That doesn't jibe with the tax numbers presented by the BEA and which
I cited previously.
Furthermore, it is my understanding the increases come almost entirely
from "the rich", i.e. the upper income brackets and corporations, thus
explaining the fact that they are paying an increasingly large
*percentage* of overall tax revenue. For one thing a very substantial
- and growing - percentage of the population pays *no* or very little
income taxes.
Fred Weiss
Mason C
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 1:17 pm, Dennis Armstrong <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> You claim Bush's tax cut produce increased revenues. Where are they?
>
>Check the statistics for yourself at the BEA website.
>
>http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=84&FirstYear=2005&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
>
>> If the "wealthy" of this nation attempt to create the fantasy world presented in "Atlas Shrugged" they will be
>> rounded up like the French and Russian Royalty before them. Let's face it, Ayn Rand, in "Atlas Shrugged"
>> was trying to recreate the world of 19th century Russia. Reliving the past is not a pathway to the future!
>
>You obviously have no idea what you are talking. For one thing Ayn
>Rand loathed Russian culture with a passion.
She loathed the political one she fled: the communists, not "Russian culture."
She loved the anarchic, laissez-faire, corrupt one that led to the revolution
when people got fed up and let Lenin in. The Laissez-faire that Rand loved
invariably leads to a revolution, bloody if it's not a democracy.
>
>Furthermore, it wasn't the "wealthy", per se, who created "the fantasy
>world" in Atlas. Wealth, among those who had it (and not all did), was
>secondary to them representing those she considered "the men of the
>mind" upon whose shoulders civilization rests.
and had no compunction about destroying it. Nice guys.
>
>Fred Weiss
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
Fred Weiss
> >You obviously have no idea what you are talking. For one thing Ayn
> >Rand loathed Russian culture with a passion.
>
> She loathed the political one she fled: the communists, not "Russian culture."
> She loved the anarchic, laissez-faire, corrupt one that led to the revolution
Czarist Russia? Laissez-faire? You're kidding, right?
> >Furthermore, it wasn't the "wealthy", per se, who created "the fantasy
> >world" in Atlas. Wealth, among those who had it (and not all did), was
> >secondary to them representing those she considered "the men of the
> >mind" upon whose shoulders civilization rests.
>
> and had no compunction about destroying it. Nice guys.
Err...no, you are totally twisting the issue. They had no compunction
about no longer being required to sacrifice themselves. If a slave
rebels, do you blame him for the economic repercussions which follow?
You clearly entirely missed the point of the book. I'm not saying you
have to agree with it. But you should at least make an effort to
fairly understand what it is.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> >>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
> >>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
> >>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>
> >>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>
> >>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
> >>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>
> >> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
>
> > Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
>
> Made it worse....
The Fed jacking up interest rates made it worse.
GOP tax cuts for the rich _caused_ it.
>FDR didn't start it but he prolonged it and deepened it.
Why weren't Repugs able to articulate than back in 1936?
If Repugs once again fail to articulate how everyone can get rich
quick with the Gipster selling stein handles, then Obama's a two
termer.
> > Repugs are already trying to blame the GOP tax cut meltdown on Obama
> > when it happened back in October '08 before he was even elected and
> > the GOP tax cut recession happened in late '07 before he was even
> > nominated.
> > That lie didn't work in 1936. �Why do Repugs think it'll work now?
> Obama was in congress for two years before he was elected president.
So a lone Democratic senator caused the GOP tax cut meltdown?
> So yes he gets blame..... �Why didn't Obama who was in the Majority in
> congress, do anything to fix it, do you have anything showing where
> Obama in 2006 - 08 was introducing legislation written personally by
> Obama to fix this problem?
>
> So Obama was to blame.
Repeat it as often as Goebbels and you'll fool yerself but you still
haven't explained why Repugs weren't able to lie their way into office
in 1936.
> I think he has a share of the Blame, And the truth is that Obama took
> over the "planning" to fix what he ignored for two years, and Obama has
> only made things worse.
>
> >>> Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> >>> FDR voted out of power?
>
> >> Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
> >> they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
> >> arguments. Now they do.
>
> > You really think that will persuade people?
>
> The Federal Reserve and income tax was only created in 1913.... so in 20
> years they hadn't learned how much damage they could do by printing
> their way out of economic slow downs and using the printing presses to
> prop-up the economy.
So you think the Fed did the right thing jacking up interest rates
after the crash?
> >> (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
> >> that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
> >> book -
> It's ominous, how right Ayn Rand was so long ago.... �Many people think
> Rush Limbaugh nailed down the Lefty Liberals and Socialist, but the Book
> "Atlas Shrugged" paints Liberalism with it's true colors.
>
> > That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
>
> Agree or not, it makes you ask the right questions.
Like The Question?
> >>> Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
>
> >> Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
> >> pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> > So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
>
> You may be surprised.
> > More and more people are agreeing with Obama's tax hikes than the
> > Gipster's tax cuts.
> What planet are you on? �
Fox News. A recent Fox poll showed 48% of Americans think Obamanomics
is better than Reaganomics.
Bret Cahill
Les Cargill
> On Mar 7, 2:11 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The CBO says that tax revenue was reduced by $165B
>> in 2007 alone by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. This figure is projected
>> to become larger (negatively) over time.
>>
>> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8337&type=0
>
> That doesn't jibe with the tax numbers presented by the BEA and which
> I cited previously.
>
> http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=84&FirstYear=2005&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
>
Those are gross numbers. The CBO figures are a value placed on
the effect of EGTRRA and JGTRRA alone. I'm not sure how to
relate the two data sets, if there is any relationship.
Heritage Foundation studies ( which are invariably designed
to defend the Bush tax cuts ) don't do a very good job of
explaining "how", just showing that tax receipts go up.
> Furthermore, it is my understanding the increases come almost entirely
> from "the rich", i.e. the upper income brackets and corporations, thus
> explaining the fact that they are paying an increasingly large
> *percentage* of overall tax revenue.
Which is true, because that is where there is income growth.
Unfortunately, those income streams were almost always placed
in jobs directly related to the inflation of real estate
values.
> For one thing a very substantial
> - and growing - percentage of the population pays *no* or very little
> income taxes.
>
Right - which is a design goal of a progressive tax scheme. If,
however, that is an artifact of a flattening wage base, then
people who allege that "the rich get richer" have another
arrow in the quiver.
Bret Cahill
> I never said he caused it.
You want to just _forget_ about the capitalists who _caused_ the 1929
crash?
If that's the rightard talking point in 2012, being forgetful, then we
can expect the same results as in 1936.
The reelection of a Democratic Party president.
> I said he prolonged it.
You say all kinds of nonsense. The real issue is if you can get
anyone to believe that the Fed hiking interest rates after the crash
was good for the economy.
> That btw is not
> even any longer a particularly controversial view -
Except with voters who now support Obamanomics over Reaganomics 48% -
40% according to a Fox poll.
> not at least among
> those who have seriously studied the question.
You mean serious issue dodgers:
> > > > Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> > > > FDR voted out of power?
> > > Because Ayn Rand hadn't yet written Atlas Shrugged - or in other words
> > > they didn't have a moral/philosophical underpinning for their economic
> > > arguments. Now they do.
> > You really think that will persuade people?
>
> Some.
The 0.25% who vote looneytarian party?
> You asked if *capitalists* can now better articulate the case
> for capitalism. The answer is "yes". Now they can and some are.
>
> > > (Sales of Atlas Shrugged are surging. It's increasingly being noted
> > > that current events are almost literally walking off the pages of the
> > > book -
>
> > That hardly means they are reading it because they agree with it.
In fact I have a copy of some of her scribblings somewhere.
> True. Only a very small percentage of people who read the book are
> fully persuaded by it.
Most are just curious how such empty rhetoric got any attention
whatsoever.
> But cultural change is always fostered by
> small, articulate, committed minorities
Speaking of articulate minorities a few years ago a _New Yorker_
article pointed out that J. K. Galbraith was the only economist who
could write well.
They were, of course, comparing the Medal of Freedom winner to
disreputable scribblers like Milt. Friedman
> > > > Hiking taxes on the rich is the most popular part of Obama's plan.
> > > Assuming that's even true, which I doubt, why not? Making other people
> > > pay and finding scapegoats is always popular.
>
> > So maybe Rand isn't all that popular?
>
> I didn't say she was. (And in fact she isn't). �
So we are right back to the question above:
If FDR could get re elected with the Fed jacking up interest rates,
how is Obama going to do worse when that guy with neatly trimming
facial hair already knows he is going to keep the discount rate at
zero right on through the 2012 elections?
> I just said that
> interest in her ideas is growing - and where it counts most, among
> those in a position to influence the culture.
Rush Limbaugh?
Bret Cahill
Rush Limbaugh will be the leader of the conservative movement after
I'm gone.
-- President Reagan
Les Cargill
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 18:05:28 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 1:17 pm, Dennis Armstrong <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You claim Bush's tax cut produce increased revenues. Where are they?
>> Check the statistics for yourself at the BEA website.
>>
>> http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=84&FirstYear=2005&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
>>
>>> If the "wealthy" of this nation attempt to create the fantasy world presented in "Atlas Shrugged" they will be
>>> rounded up like the French and Russian Royalty before them. Let's face it, Ayn Rand, in "Atlas Shrugged"
>>> was trying to recreate the world of 19th century Russia. Reliving the past is not a pathway to the future!
>> You obviously have no idea what you are talking. For one thing Ayn
>> Rand loathed Russian culture with a passion.
>
> She loathed the political one she fled: the communists, not "Russian culture."
> She loved the anarchic, laissez-faire, corrupt one that led to the revolution
> when people got fed up and let Lenin in. The Laissez-faire that Rand loved
> invariably leads to a revolution, bloody if it's not a democracy.
>
But... Russian Communism was a melding of Anarchism - real Anarchism,
ala Emma Goldman - with a Marxist skin.
Russian Tsarism was it's own thing, and very hard to characterize.
>> Furthermore, it wasn't the "wealthy", per se, who created "the fantasy
>> world" in Atlas. Wealth, among those who had it (and not all did), was
>> secondary to them representing those she considered "the men of the
>> mind" upon whose shoulders civilization rests.
>
> and had no compunction about destroying it. Nice guys.
The book is a reductio on that very premise :)
>> Fred Weiss
>
>
> Mason Clark
> *Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
> http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
> -- many excerpts you can see --
--
Les Cargill
Bret Cahill
> >>>>> from the communists in ideology you know. And now they are in charge.
> >>>>> And our young people have been kidnapped....
> >>>> Well, not all things in the capitalism is working fine, as attested by
> >>>> this crisis.
> >> Actually it is working, the problem is that you don't know how it works.
> > �Well don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of our chairs. �The
> > least you could do is come up with some _new_ Repugliar talking points
> > and _tell_ us how it works.
> > Otherwise Obama will win in 2012 just like FDR won in 1936.
> I'm tired of Obama's lies after 6 weeks,
Who cares about that? According to a recent Fox poll Americans prefer
Obamanomics over Reaganomics 48% to 40%.
Anyway you are dodging the issue:
Tell_ us how it works.
We know how it "works" for Repugliars. How is it supposed to work for
the majority?
> ,you think even idiots like you
> will believe the lies for four years?
What lies?
> > Repugs had no credible talking points in 1936 and they have nothing
> > but more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the
> > first place.
>
> Actually they knew then.... and we all know now that Borrowing trillions
> of dollars to buy votes, will bankrupt America,
Clinton balanced the budget with tax hikes on the rich.
Why won't it work for Obama?
> but you socialist keep
> spending government money like a teenager with a credit card and when it
> does collapse, there will be Change.
It did collapse -- after the cumulative effect of 8 years of Dumbya's
tax cuts for the rich.
And there was Change: No more GOP.
> That change may include pitch forks and torches in socialists front yards.
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to keep your carbon
footprint down. Spree local. Just shoot up the trailer park.
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
>>>>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>>>>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
>>>>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>>>>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>>>>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>>>>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>>>> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
>>> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
>> Made it worse....
>
> The Fed jacking up interest rates made it worse.
FDR jacking up taxes made it worse, you can look and verify it.... in
1932 and again in 1936 FDR raised taxes
The deepest parts of the depression was 1933 and 1937.
"In October of 1929 the stock market crash marked the beginning of the
Great Depression. As the economy shrank, government receipts also fell.
In 1932, the Federal government collected only $1.9 billion, compared to
$6.6 billion in 1920. In the face of rising budget deficits which
reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed the prevailing economic
wisdom at the time and passed the *Tax Act* of 1932 which dramatically
increased tax rates once again. This was followed by *another tax*
increase *in* 1936 that further improved the government's finances while
further weakening the economy. By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4
percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent. In 1939, Congress
systematically codified the tax laws so that all subsequent tax
legislation until 1954 amended this basic code. The combination of a
shrunken economy and the repeated tax increases raised the Federal
government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of GDP by 1940."
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html
"government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of GDP by 1940."
We are now at about 26.8%
Where is that extra 20% going?
>
> GOP tax cuts for the rich _caused_ it.
Show the evidence.
Bret_E...@yahoo.com
> >>>>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
> >>>>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
> >>>>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
> >>>>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
> >>>>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
> >>>>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
> >>>> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
> >>> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
> >> Made it worse....
>
> > The Fed jacking up interest rates made it worse.
>
> FDR jacking up taxes made it worse,
Now you need to explain the high tax Clinton economic boom.
> you can look and verify it.... �in
> 1932 and again in 1936 FDR raised taxes
> The deepest parts of the depression was 1933 and 1937.
So, if the Great Depression is typical, the current downturn will max
out around 2012 and the Democrat in office will not get blamed for it.
. . .
> > GOP tax cuts for the rich _caused_ it.
> Show the evidence.
1981: The Gipster cut taxes on the rich.
1982 - 1986: 12% unemployment "WiLl WoRK fOr FoOd, GoD BleSS"
economy.
1992: Another after shock tax cut recession which caused a draft
dodging, womanizing fib telling governor from a small state to topple
a WWII war hero president.
1993: Highest tax hikes ever
1999: Longest expansion ever discredited Reaganomics.
2001: Tax cuts on the rich but since Karl Rove knew Reaganomics was
discredited by the high tax Clinton economic boom, BushCo was forced
to abandon the rhetoric of the Gipper in favor of jingoism:
"Either you support the president [and his tax cuts on the rich] or
you're a Saddam lover."
> >> FDR didn't start it but he prolonged it and deepened it.
> > Why weren't Repugs able to articulate than back in 1936?
> > If Repugs once again fail to articulate how everyone can get rich
> > quick with the Gipster selling stein handles, then Obama's a two
> > termer.
Fresh out of talking points?
Yup. Fresh outta talking points. Time to stick a fork into the GOP.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 2:11 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> The CBO says that tax revenue was reduced by $165B
> >> in 2007 alone by EGTRRA and JGTRRA. This figure is projected
> >> to become larger (negatively) over time.
>
> >>http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8337&type=0
>
> > That doesn't jibe with the tax numbers presented by the BEA and which
> > I cited previously.
>
>
> Those are gross numbers. The CBO figures are a value placed on
> the effect of EGTRRA and JGTRRA alone. I'm not sure how to
> relate the two data sets, if there is any relationship.
>
> Heritage Foundation studies ( which are invariably designed
> to defend the Bush tax cuts ) don't do a very good job of
> explaining "how", just showing that tax receipts go up.
>
> > Furthermore, it is my understanding the increases come almost entirely
> > from "the rich", i.e. the upper income brackets and corporations, thus
> > explaining the fact that they are paying an increasingly large
> > *percentage* of overall tax revenue.
>
> Which is true, because that is where there is income growth.
So, if you want to stick to the CBO story you have to argue that tax
revenues - which grew substantially despite the tax cuts - would have
been *even higher*. I have to wonder how they hell they could possibly
know that.
In any case, the fact remains that tax cuts - supposedly "just for the
rich" - produced both a substantial *increase* in tax revenues along
with an increase in the *percentage* of overall tax receipts paid by
the rich. (Gee, but we didn't loot them enough. We could have
extracted even more).
The problem with Bush fiscal management is that gov't *spending*
increased at a greater rate than the increase in tax revenues. Hence
the chronic deficits. But the problem was not - as its enemies have
alleged - that his (tax) policies unfairly favored the rich. That is
not what caused this mess.
> Unfortunately, those income streams were almost always placed
> in jobs directly related to the inflation of real estate values.
Well obviously there was a substantial increase in income related to
real estate. But apart from the fact that it benefited millions of
average people, homeowners and others, other segments of the economy
were also booming. So, it was not just real estate.
Anyway, that's a secondary issue. I'm just responding to the charge
that the rich have been benefiting somehow unfairly by tax cuts and
that now somehow and for some reason they have to be made to pay by
raising their rates.
> > For one thing a very substantial
> > - and growing - percentage of the population pays *no* or very little
> > income taxes.
>
> Right - which is a design goal of a progressive tax scheme. If,
> however, that is an artifact of a flattening wage base, then
> people who allege that "the rich get richer" have another
> arrow in the quiver.
I'm surprised hearing that from you because I would assume you know
better.
You should know that average household net worth increased
substantially, partly from real estate, yes. But also from the stock
market. True, that has since evaporated. But then the rich are no
longer getting richer either right now.
None of this has anything to do with "tax cuts for the rich". That is
not what caused the financial crisis. And it certainly constitutes no
basis for any supposed benefits of increasing their taxes.
Fred Weiss
Geode
In this case, and in reference to your last paragraph, you could
explain to me in clear terms, which is the cause of an economic
crisis, which is the fast way to get out of it.
I have been thinking about this. But I am not an expert.
Where is the money? Who has the money? I don't mean the virtual
money, but the real one. A man with a castle could have not any
money, even if the castle is value in hundreds of millions.
By example, all the money that people put into banks, where is it? I
don't think it is in the vaults of the bank. It is easy to think that
most of this money is out. It has been lend to borrowers around the
country. So, the question is "where is the money?" Who has the money
to expend? I the speed of economy is shrinking, the money is also
disappearing at the same speed. So, where is it? It has been taken
out all the missing money to pay for the debts? This is good and bad
at the same time. The debts are being payed, but the money does not
circulate any more. Unless the back is taking out this money back to
spend it. So, at the same time the people get out with no money,m the
banks would be expending this money on trifles to return them back to
the circulation.
The main trouble I see is the circulation. If less and less money is
circulating, the economy gets shrinking farther and farther. So, I
see this crisis as a case of money disappearing from the circuit. So,
someone has to be in charge of injecting money back into the system.
But not for paying debts, but for the ordinary consume. If the one in
charge of putting this money is the government I don't mind. If
people had over borrowed and overspent a lot of money, there are two
options, to nuke them with several billions megatons, or to bring back
money into circulation.
If people tend to overspend, government should put taxes on this
overspending. The question is "Who was overspending?". The other
question, why the banks were lending money so easily as to be in
danger of collapse now? Ordinary people cannot be guilt of the wrong
doing of the banks. The people in the construction frenzy, could not
be then only culprits. And the overpriced stocks... why they were
overvalued?
I have read a long time ago, a long ago as ten year or more, in the
Economist magazine, a British monthly paper, that the stocks were
overpriced and their value was not more than 50 or 60 percent of their
price. The overprice of the stocks is a sure formula for a crash.
Well, I am not an expert. You can know better and tell me what is
what. I hope you don't disappoint me.
Leopoldo
John J
> On 8 mar, 01:58, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-
> In this case, and in reference to your last paragraph, you could
> explain to me in clear terms, which is the cause of an economic
> crisis, which is the fast way to get out of it.
>
> I have been thinking about this. But I am not an expert.
>
> Where is the money? Who has the money? I don't mean the virtual
> money, but the real one. A man with a castle could have not any
> money, even if the castle is value in hundreds of millions.
> By example, all the money that people put into banks, where is it?
It was not the money put into bank vaults that created the missing value
(or currency which is really trust.) The missing value was ghost-value
created through financial machinations, derivatives, for example, that
the banks knew were false and which failed to carry over during their
mutually acknowledge window-to-perform - thus the crash when the banks
realized they had failed in a (largely) mutual attempt to foster
false-value. Value was also false in the promised outcomes from toxic loans.
> The main trouble I see is the circulation. If less and less money is
> circulating, the economy gets shrinking farther and farther.
The cash, dollar-bills and coins that the masses use is not what drives
the economy except in token form when politicians use it to purchase
popular confidence which is another of buttresses of 'value'.
> If people tend to overspend, government should put taxes on this
> overspending.
How does one tax a citizen who has no money?
> The question is "Who was overspending?". The other
> question, why the banks were lending money so easily as to be in
> danger of collapse now?
The banks were being irresponsible, stupid, exploiting government
oversight. Not all banks failed, you know. None of the banks in my town
failed. They are largely independent by comparison to the big ones and
were fiscally conservative. They did not make loans to those who could
pay, and did not make loans of the kind that would balloon to fail.
> Ordinary people cannot be guilt of the wrong
> doing of the banks.
Yes they can, and they did and they are guilty. What is more clear than
"don't spend what you do not earn"?
What is more clear than the complete irresponsibility of believing that
the government exists to make up for the failure of personal
responsibility?
Poetic-Justice
>>> etc. are telling me, capitalism has some defects of control, or the
>>> managers in charge of those controls were drunk or sleeping. I don't
>> A fool and his money.... maybe there was a lot of suckers born each
>> minute, about 40 years ago.
>>
>>> say anything now about the cases that happened in times of former
>>> president Bush, the sandals of the dot.com companies, etc.
>> I suspected Government controls caused the dot com bubble.
>>
>>> I am not going to enter into this war because is to a point
>>> independent of economics, but is a sure heavy charge over the economy.
>> Being as we are paying for the war it surely is a drain.
>>
>>> I don't say that capitalism is broken, it isn't. History proves it.
>>> All that I am saying is something is wrong when we are unable to
>>> avoid the cyclical crisis. And some exaggerated scandals like the
>>> case of Madoff.
>> The Human cycle is the problem, we forget how bad the bad times can be.
>> The Federal reserve prints money to cushion the crisis and the
>> interference makes for unintended consequences. They make recession
>> slower longer and deeper, they create a Depression.
>>
>
> In this case, and in reference to your last paragraph, you could
> explain to me in clear terms, which is the cause of an economic
> crisis, which is the fast way to get out of it.
The cause is Government printing/borrowing and spending money. At some
point it catches up to devalue everyone else's money, that devaluation
is a recession/depression.
Cut taxes and regulations.... stop borrowing and printing money, let
the bad businesses crash and get the pain over with. Then pick up the
pieces with small businesses spurred on by less regulation to replace
the openings left by those that failed.
Darwin's theory applied to economics. Adapt or die.
>
> I have been thinking about this. But I am not an expert.
>
I am a common sense guy. If you can't be shown how it works, it
probably doesn't work. People tried to prove the Perpetual motion
machine, E=mc² proved otherwise. there is no perpetual economic engine
either.
> Where is the money? Who has the money? I don't mean the virtual
> money, but the real one. A man with a castle could have not any
> money, even if the castle is value in hundreds of millions.
> By example, all the money that people put into banks, where is it? I
It is becoming cash where possible and being clutched close to your
pocket, people are easily scared. When scared about someone taking your
money what would you do with it? you go get it and bring it home and
like a squirrel burring nuts, you hide it for the hard times to come.
Banks do the same thing. Business do the same thing.
> don't think it is in the vaults of the bank. It is easy to think that
> most of this money is out. It has been lend to borrowers around the
> country. So, the question is "where is the money?" Who has the money
The money is Setting on the side lines. Waiting for Obama to leave
office so they can be secure that the government won't create some way
to steal their money.
There is some money out there, it's buying guns.... look at the gun
stocks. People are willing to buy things of value, stocks won't help you
in the coming marketplace but a gun will.
> to expend? I the speed of economy is shrinking, the money is also
> disappearing at the same speed. So, where is it? It has been taken
No the economy is shrinking faster than the cash is drying up, because
our economy is based on leveraging the cash with loans to make your cash
work harder than it otherwise would, like the cash in your house or
Certificate of deposit is leveraged by using it to get a loan.
Geode
Ok, let me analyze this.
People can be driven to believe this or that. It is like to believe
hari Krishna or in Jesus loves ya, or other silly thing. Houses were
each year more expensive so, some stupid guys believe in that.
Instead of telling himself, all this is nothing but a fucking scam,
they went to a bank to look for a mortgage.
This could be a stupid thing to do, for these houses, tomorrow would
worth half the price. But banks should be more enlightened than the
stupid common folk. When you ask for money to buy a house, the bank
ask you for documents to verify your earnings before lending any money
to you.
So, as an individual, you could have the brain as thick as a brick and
you want to buy a new house, for they are more dear with every year.
But banks should have to know much better, and don't lend money to buy
these overvalued goods. So, I think, you cannot blame individuals as
such, they are victims of an economic sickness. You had to blame, to
those that were in charge of driving the economy.
By example, many people thought it was a good thing to invest in the
stock market. Well, prices were rising with each year. They were
promising surreal benefits. To me, this was a very ominous sign, but
some stupid guy I know well, put several hundred thousand of his
earnings on the the stock market. To me this was the most stupid
thing he could do, but he did not ask my advice. Now, after only a
year so so, he has less than half the money he invested.
Is he guilty by being so naive? No, he is not guilty, this is
simple ignorance. He was the victim of a social lie, very well
orchestrated.
Well, this political argument about making the poor stupid guys
responsible and victims of this mess is an iniquity.
Had they charge Greenspan for allowing Madoff to run his Ponzi
scheme? Are Madoff going to be fried in the electric chair? Would
Greenspan be charged and put in a federal prison for several years? I
doubt much all this. What happened with those chaps of the dot com
scandals, some years ago? Was anyone was charged and put in a federal
prison? I don't read anything of that sort. It would have been good
news to me. And not because I have been a victim for I spend all my
monthly pay on a normal consume.
So, I start to imagine a scene in which those people that were making
to rise prices on the stock exchange, were selling their stocks to
stupid fellows. They pocketed all this money and saved it on his
cellars, waiting for everything to go bust. Some of them put their
money in the banks, and the banks were like mads lending this excess
of money to more stupid buyers.
Now, the culprits are the ordinary guys that believed in the god
Krisna. Then, now you should led the economy go asunder as farther
down as possible, next to the Hell's chasms, and they buy all this
houses and properties at very cheap prices. Then, property should
return where it belong, to people who have money.
This is a sort of Ponzi scheme to me. I cannot not buy this arguments
of conservatives blaming a putative socialism who want to redress this
fucking crisis.
You know, I am an ignoramus of economy.
You should know much better, and would clear all this errors of
judgement I put here in this post.
Leopoldo
Geode
wrote:
Ok, I don't buy this gospel.
I should think if Marx has its point in his critic in Das Capital. He
said that profits were catching more and more money out of the
circulation, and the economy would be shrinking to the point of
collapse. This would be right, if the system in a way would not had
injected new money when it was very scarce.
And now money is scarcer by the month. So, if this is you good idea
of "poetic justice" inflation is a good thing for those that keep
their money tight, and woe the world. Of course, is a good idea to
keep the money tight under a tile of the cellar. You can buy
properties for the 10% of his former overblown value.
To save the planet, the government should fuck all this money
tightfisters by printing more money. Once you see that the value of
your money is evaporating because of inflation. you should put it to
work.
All this theory of your money is yours, the god fuck the whole world,
deserves the most stern opprobrium.
Of course there is a lot of stupid business in the world. One of them
is the motor industries. We cannot afford a new economic collapse
when the oil wells would began to dry up. It is right to save them
now, to stop this crisis, but these industries should be die and a
matter ten or more years. We look like stupid people of Easter
Island; they exterminated all the trees of the island because they
were very busy with the industry of building more and more statues
called Moais. They needed a lot of wood for building several ramps of
wood, up to nine miles long, from the quarries to the coast where they
were put standing. They needed also a lot of rope to haul the
statues, and this ropes were made with the fiber bark of some trees.
They were working on their industry till they exterminated all the
trees of the island.
When you watch this scene, you should consider the chiefs of the
island had to be aware that with each year there were less and less
trees in the island. Well, they were competing among them, the
chiefs. So, this here is about the same thing. The principal people
is competing with each other, and they give a damn if the island is
deprived of the last tree.
So, people here that still have some money say, let the fucking world
die; I would not spend my money. I earned it by selling houses, or
stocks at very inflated prices.
Leopoldo
Beam Me Up Scotty
>> How does one tax a citizen who has no money?
The Socialists seem to put them in the Gulags to work it off.
In the USA we send them a check so they can pay more taxes on their tax
rebate.
Geode
it is very logical to put taxes on those who have the money. We could
not tax the homeless, could we?
And if you, as an agent of government, cannot find where the money is
hiding, you should print money up to help those in need and to avoid
the fucking machine stops.
Leopoldo
Geode
I would like you translate this phrase to me, please,
> No the economy is shrinking faster than the cash is drying up, because
> our economy is based on leveraging the cash with loans to make your cash
> work harder than it otherwise would, like the cash in your house or
> Certificate of deposit is leveraged by using it to get a loan.
What exactly means "our economy is based on leveraging the cash with
loans to make your cash work harder than it otherwise would," this
looks like gibberish.
I am not impressed with the jargon some putative economists use. It
is a little like those philosophers that hide their ignorance with the
jargon of the trade.
The people who have money enough to save it, are only a few. So the
economy is shrinking because people do not expend money. In part,
many of them are scared, but most are simple unemployed. I live in a
small island of only 30 miles in diameter. I have watched they had
invested in the island till now like 20 big malls for an island of 750
thousand people. I think this is too many malls for such a tiny
island. They are going to have a bad business, beside wrecking the
small old shops of the island. This is going to be a business. It
is what is called "diminishing returns on investment". I know this
much. And this is all due to the profits. Let's asume is good to
have profits, and what are you going to do with profits to put a new
business of the same class; it is one you know better.
Well, all the profits earned cannot give you farther benefits, for
this would be an exponential growth. You cannot have an exponential
growth on profits. All those growing profits would devour the money
of consumers.
I don't argument that a particular business cannot grow up fast, or
very fast. But all the benefits of this successful business must be
equivalent to the loses of some others.
It is right that a stock rise in price, for it promise to have profits
and reward their owners, but you cannot have all the stock, from
different enterprises, rising together like mad. This is a sign of
inflation. If some stocks rise steeply some others should sink and
wreck down. The median should be the always the same.
So, if the stock market as a whole is rising like mad, something is
going to be bust.
Authorities should have to be watching to avoid this anomaly. This is
sheer madness.
leopoldo
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9 mar, 20:23, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-
> Dog..com> wrote:
>>>> How does one tax a citizen who has no money?
>> The Socialists seem to put them in the Gulags to work it off.
>>
>> In the USA we send them a check so they can pay more taxes on their tax
>> rebate.
>
> it is very logical to put taxes on those who have the money. We could
> not tax the homeless, could we?
Yes you can tax the homeless and the yacht buyer all with the same tax.
That would be a Federal sales tax. It would also tax the drug dealers,
the prostitutes and the Foreign visitors and the Illegal workers....
The sales tax gets the tax at the point of sale and it can be charged on
a Homeless man's burger coffee or beer, and the rich who buys a yacht, a
hotel room or a diamond ring.
can you imagine, people other than the ones "working hard", paying tax?
The problem is that congress loses it's ability to barter away tax cuts
and audit individuals, in reality they lose power, so it will be near
impossible to force the change on Congress.
Day Brown
> Yes you can tax the homeless and the yacht buyer all with the same tax.
> That would be a Federal sales tax. It would also tax the drug dealers,
> the prostitutes and the Foreign visitors and the Illegal workers....
>
> http://fairtax.org
>
> The sales tax gets the tax at the point of sale and it can be charged on
> a Homeless man's burger coffee or beer, and the rich who buys a yacht, a
> hotel room or a diamond ring.
>
> can you imagine, people other than the ones "working hard", paying tax?
>
> The problem is that congress loses it's ability to barter away tax cuts
> and audit individuals, in reality they lose power, so it will be near
> impossible to force the change on Congress.
>
>> And if you, as an agent of government, cannot find where the money is
>> hiding, you should print money up to help those in need and to avoid
>> the fucking machine stops.
At the end of the day, it dont matter what is fair. All that matters is that
the sheeple think they have enuf to get by. Soons they figure out they
dont, and the rich have all the money, then they start dragging the
bastards out to be shot. Moreover, the lower and middle classes are already
broke. Think carefully now. It only makes sense to tax the people who
actually HAVE THE MONEY. That is the rich.
The income tax is the easiest and cheapest way for the government to collect
that money. And its the easiest, now that computers track the way money
moves, for the government to see who has it, who owes it, and who tried to
hide it. Its not fair, but we are not talking about fairness, but trying to
prevent revolution.
I'm part of a rural collective. We grow and exchange food. No sale tax.
There is no official record of the trade. I dont officially own a car. I
dont pay tax on it, nor insurance, but when I need one, its here for me to
use. I get a homestead exemption on my farm; no tax on that either. Others
get to live here tax free. The coop pays for the broadband, cell phones and
electric power at different locations for the members to use. As far as the
state is concerned, it looks like a small business and therefore gets very
low taxes since the official cash income is so low.
The state, local, and federal governments would all go broke trying to use
your 'fairtax'. Maybe urbanites are too stupid to figure it out?
--
I aint lost it. I never had it.
Day Brown
> Authorities should have to be watching to avoid this anomaly. This is
> sheer madness.
import oil. They wanted the global economy to expand, but nobody figured
out how to expand global oil production beyond Hubbard's peak. As a result,
all these smart capitalists suddenly saw the price rise, and with that,
they saw their own profits shrink.
Which burst the bubble. And nobody will invest now because any fool can see
that soon as the global economy gets going again, the demand for oil will
rise again, and with that the price. Which will destroy profits again.
The only rational policy needs to include an effort to dramatically ramp up
alternative energy to the level where it can expand as the economy expands
so that oil consumption does not rise.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Why prevent it?
> I'm part of a rural collective. We grow and exchange food. No sale tax.
That's been tried many many times.
> There is no official record of the trade. I dont officially own a car. I
> dont pay tax on it, nor insurance, but when I need one, its here for me to
> use. I get a homestead exemption on my farm; no tax on that either. Others
> get to live here tax free. The coop pays for the broadband, cell phones and
Be careful about others living there tax free, the IRS looks at it as a
gift and will tax it as income "rent that is gifted to them".
> electric power at different locations for the members to use. As far as the
> state is concerned, it looks like a small business and therefore gets very
> low taxes since the official cash income is so low.
You can't live in your business and write off your living cost to the
business....
the IRS will disallow it.
> The state, local, and federal governments would all go broke trying to use
> your 'fairtax'. Maybe urbanites are too stupid to figure it out?
NO, the State considers a Barter, to be commerce and it is taxed as
sales, if they choose to come after you for it. They will tax you using
fair market value. They expect you to honor the tax and have a form to
mail in with your money to pay your tax. You may be under similar laws
that you are breaking.
Actually in Florida you pay no State income tax at all and they manage
to do very well, with this Depression they are losing tax because
business is down, home sales are down.... but the State Ran for years
without being in the red.
Andy F.
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-Dog..com> wrote in
message news:zzUsl.13058$v8.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of
>>>>>>>>>> other people's
>>>>>>>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
>>>>>>>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
>>>>>>>>> nobody likes standing in line.
>>>>>>>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>>>>>>> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>>>>>> So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>>>>> Not unless "the 1930's" came before 1929.
>>>> Then why do you think FDR caused the Great Depression?
>>> Made it worse....
>>
>> The Fed jacking up interest rates made it worse.
>
> FDR jacking up taxes made it worse, you can look and verify it.... in
> 1932 and again in 1936 FDR raised taxes
Ridiculous.
Who do you think was the President in 1932?
Day Brown
> "government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of GDP by 1940."
> We are now at about 26.8%
>
> Where is that extra 20% going?
of course, the vastly larger and more expensive military industrial
complex. Republicans voted for all of that.
Maybe you need your own party.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Hoover & FDR along with Congress jacking up taxes made it worse, you can
look and verify it.... in 1932(63%) and again in 1936(79%) FDR raised
taxes.
"On the campaign trail in 1932, Roosevelt noted: "For over two years our
federal government has experienced unprecedented deficits, in spite of
increased taxes." Yet, much like Gov. Davis today, Roosevelt decided to
increase taxes more. He found out that a tripling of tax revenues did
not balance the budget because the deficit soared from $2.2 billion in
1932 to $2.9 billion in 1940."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3035
"Social Security payroll tax was imposed with a 2 percent rate starting
in 1937."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932
Just to make sure that the voters were getting the message the president
advanced a plan to increase taxes on savings and undistributed corporate
earnings, and sent form ISC9 to every voter to remind them that they
"would have something to live on" after they were too old to work. The
president was stringing the sinews of patronage that would bind working
Americans to the Democratic Party for the next 45 years.
http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos1936.html
The Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648 (June 22, 1936), established an
"undistributed profits tax" on corporations in the United States .
It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The act was applicable to incomes for 1936 and thereafter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1936
In October of 1929 the stock market crash marked the beginning of the
Great Depression. As the economy shrank, government receipts also fell.
In 1932, the Federal government collected only $1.9 billion, compared to
$6.6 billion in 1920. In the face of rising budget deficits which
reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed the prevailing economic
wisdom at the time and passed the Tax Act of 1932 which dramatically
increased tax rates once again. This was followed by another tax
increase in 1936 that further improved the government's finances while
further *weakening* the economy. By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached
Beam Me Up Scotty
That 6.8 was building all the WPA, TVA, Military, welfare, WW1 Vets
disability, things like the Hoover Dam and social security and a
Bazillion other government projects.......
And yet somehow - someone is spending 20% more than when we had the
highest deficit spending in history.
NOOOOOOO government is out of control and moving to take, over 40% of
the GDP from *WE THE PEOPLE*
Geode
with all the money that spends government it is clear that even the
homeless pay taxes on what they eat and drink, but it is no enough
money. It needs more money than they get from the sales tax.
There is a lot of financiers and brokers that have been duping people
to buy trash mortgages and stocks at inflated prices. They have
behaved like real crooks. Many o them did not have any stocks or
bonds, not toxic investments, because they have been the same that
have been cooking this mess. They earned all this money by duping
investors, and now they are preaching the government should not dump
money into the system to get out faster from the crisis. Very
educative.
leopoldo
Geode
the hardcore conservatives were in part the culprits of this mess.
And is stupid to ask for tax on sales only, in a moment where most
Malls and shopping centers are running sales at 50 or 70% of last
year, same month.
It is also true that in the part where I live, in the last ten or
fifteen years, they have built almost 20 new malls, or big shopping
centers. And this to my mind is stupid. Where I live there is not
that much people.
The trouble with profits is that after a time, they don't know where
to invest all this money they have earned. It is a case of
diminishing returns from the capital. And the only cure for that is
to spend all this money back into the system. In this way, they
economy would again get into action.
The theory is... if you take all the products made and sent to the
malls to be sold, you can make an addition and see how much it is.
So, after discounting administrations expenses and taxes, all that
remained is profits. There is not any problem with profits, if the
profits are thrown back into the machine. The only problem is when
you want that all this profits would continue to produce more
profits. This would be a good thing if it happened, but the trouble
is it does not. For if all the investments made were producing
profits, after some twenty or thirty years, many people could not buy
anything for all the real money had become profits.
If there is a balance, between those that have profits and those that
have loses, every thing is right and balanced. So, all the profits
made cannot be saved, as some investors dream, for the money that does
not go back to the circuit is the missed money. This is the money
that people have not anymore to spend. That is why the government has
to extract this money from where it is hiding, or has to print it and
give it to people in exchange for a more or less useful work.
Leopoldo
Geode
there is more than that. Oil is running out for sure. But we looked
that those Polynesians that lived in Eater island. They were very
busy producing bigger and bigger statues as to be busy and not fight
among them a civil war, because they were too many people in the
island. But to carry a statue of 60 tons nine miles to the shore was
needed to cut the the trees. They have to build a ramp with logs
crossed with sleepers to push the statues downward to the coast.
They needed also ropes to pull the statues, that were made with the
fibers the bark of a tree, and a lot of levers.
They were cutting all the tall trees of the island till the had none.
Studies made in the island had showed that the island was very well
forested and had a lot of flightless land birds that were also
exterminated, some by human hunting and some by the rats carried by
the Polynesians who landed on the island.
Even if we manage to produce alternative fuels, we would be unable to
afford the automotive industry as it is known today. Only a few rich
people would be able to afford the prices of those fuels. Most of the
people would have to commute to their jobs by public transport.
We would be happy, and we can in the near future expend so much
electricity as now.
Unless the physicist find a way to produce the fusion of deuterium, we
would have a lot of problems simple to expend a quarter of energy we
are wasting now.
Leopoldo
Geode
I remember when Reagan was on campaign for the presidency. I am not
American, but read foreign papers. So, I remember that an issue of
Reagan was the deficit of Government that was some billions dollars.
Then, I remember that after some years in office, Reagan multiplied by
a hundred this deficit of government. The same applied with Bush. He
was blaming the deficit, even if it was very small in the times of
Clinton. Well, look at the deficit now and tell me how much is. I
really don't know, for I am a foreigner living in the Canary Islands
and only marginally interested in this questions.
leopoldo
pro...@gmail.com
Dog..com> wrote:
> Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>>>> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> >>>>> money." Margaret Thatcher
> >>>> I thought the real problem with it was that
> >>>> nobody likes standing in line.
> >>> That was the problem with the Capitalism of the 1930s,...
>
>
> >> I think you mean FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930's,
>
> > So the New Deal caused the crash of the 1929?
>
> deferred tax, made it worse.
>
> > Why weren't capitalists able to articulate that back in 1936 to get
> > FDR voted out of power?
>
>
> > It's starting to look like today's capitalists won't be able to
> > articulate anything in 2012 and Obama will be a two termer.
>
> I wouldn't bet on it. People are generally stupid, but they will have 4
> years to get this point.
Is the plan here to just say something stupid in the hopes of adding
confusion? Socialism is not taking people's money to give to the lazy.
It is everyone working together to fund projects that are too big or
impossible to do for profit. Things like the army, fire protection,
police, courts, highways, NASA, University and education, research and
regulation.
grease...@yahoo.com
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
> money." Margaret Thatcher
>
>
> F M McNeill
> 858 206-3517
> California, USA
> ***********************************************
> "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among
> them bounties, donations and benefits."-Plutarch (c.45-125 A.D.)
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher
yeah, fucking Bush. I mean actually he did run out of our money, so
he took money from our grandchildren.
I wonder if the Chinese will repo Alaska and Hawaii, at least for
starters.
Poetic Justice
The post office?
Government education?
FEMA?
Social Security?
You mean run things that are failing, broke and incompetently run?